The big news event of last week was Sen. Rand Paul’s filibuster wherein he demanded the administration acknowledge that they don’t have a Constitutional right to attack US citizens on American soil with drones. Sen. Paul seemingly won this battle as Attorney General Eric Holder issued a one paragraph statement stating that the government doesn’t have the right to attack American citizens who aren’t engaged in combat against the United States. At first look it appears Sen. Paul won this battle, especially so since he acknowledged winning. No doubt he won the PR battle. He took on the administration which appears to have caved. Or did they?
What exactly is an American engaged in combat? Most of us probably think of someone in a military uniform or perhaps someone who has taken up arms against the United States. However as an Op-ed in the New York Times points out both the Bush 43 and Obama administrations believe financing terrorism is combat. If financing terrorism is combat, then any American citizen who is financing terrorism is subject to drone attack according to Eric Holder’s letter to Sen. Paul. No doubt such activity is a crime that should be prosecuted. We have a Constitutional method for charging and trying people for crimes. It does not include drone attack.
Since the last two administration’s have taken an expansive view of the term combat, we ought to think about where that expansive view might take us. Make no mistake, lawyers are paid to expand definitions and force facts into existing law whether they fit or not. A century of progressive jurisprudence ought to make it obvious to us that anything is possible. With that in mind could it not be argued that opposing political parties are engaged in “combat” with the existing government of the United States? After all, such people are actively engaged in overthrowing those currently in power. Sure, they make seek to unseat the current government via legal elections. But they’re engaged in combat nonetheless. Plus they’re financed which would subject all of their donors to drone attack.
You laugh but this is what lawyers are paid to do and if you think lawyers in Eric Holder’s Department of Justice aren’t coming up with these wild, expansive readings of the law you’re fooling yourself. Let’s get slightly less crazy. The progressive left has long defended American Communists despite the fact that these people want to overthrow the current government and replace it with a Marxist government. Under an expansive definition of combat all of these Communists would be subjected to drone attack. So would their financiers and others associated with them. The German-American Bund in the 30′s would be so subjected. Any number of religious groups may be subjected to drone attack. Those who believe in the Westminster Confession and thus believe in Christian civil government could be subjected to drone attack under an expansive reading of the term combat.
The possibilities here are endless because the last two administrations have adopted an expansive reading of the term combat. Thus when Eric Holder says Americans not engaged in combat against the United States won’t be attacked, he really doesn’t mean it because he knows the term combat means much more than the average American thinks it means. Any American who wants to overthrow the current political system, even if their ideas are theory only, could be subjected to drone attack. So could their supporters and financiers. Holder’s statement isn’t as transparent as it initially appears. Sen. Paul won the PR battle last week, there’s no doubt about that. However Holder didn’t really cave, the victory is hollow in terms of policy.
